Balance is the process of allow each character to contribute to a game equally. In D&D, this means all classes are reasonably good in combat, and most are reasonably good out of it. It makes it so people are not over-shadowed in a co-operative games.
For those who support imbalance, why is this a bad thing?
Define:"reasonably good", does this allow that all are at least reasonably good but some are better in combat? The crux here is: viable options. A system where you can make a rogue that is as good in combat as the fighter (a la the 4ed striker rogue) is fine if. Making that rogue you opt for the thug or assasin build for instance in stead of choosing a burglar or forger build/subclass (which will have moer non-combat options and abilities). The latter 2 builds might be less good in combat (still reasonable) but a player will know this when choosing this character.
For those that want to have a combat oriented D&D there should be options to play combat oriented builds for each class that are comparably good in combat, but there should be options for those groups that don't. D&D is both a co-operative and a roleplaying game. That said, combat in a co-operative game could also be seen as a group playing the party as a whole; if the fighter is the damagedealer my rogue can contribute by making sure that the fighter deals her damage where it hurts most by distracting the artilery or even guarding the mage so the fighter doesn't have to worry about that.
Combat-encounters in D&D doesn't have to be these self-contained minigames like they are in 4ed. Yes, they're fun, they work fantasticly (from the DM's point of view), there are many tactical option where all partymembers can contribute. However my players aren't equally interested in the tactical part or in the combat-encouters in general and for those that aren't as interested the lack of non-combat options when levelling is a bit disappointing and levelling is less exicting than for those that like combat abilities. Basicly, the way 4ed did it, the balance in what players want with their characters is sacrificed to class-balance in combat.
I think imbalance (in combat) isn't a problem if the imbalance isn't intrinsicly classrelated but choice related.
Balance is the process of allow each character to contribute to a game equally. In D&D, this means all classes are reasonably good in combat, and most are reasonably good out of it. It makes it so people are not over-shadowed in a co-operative games.
For those who support imbalance, why is this a bad thing?
Define:"reasonably good", does this allow that all are at least reasonably good but some are better in combat? The crux here is: viable options. A system where you can make a rogue that is as good in combat as the fighter (a la the 4ed striker rogue) is fine if. Making that rogue you opt for the thug or assasin build for instance in stead of choosing a burglar or forger build/subclass (which will have moer non-combat options and abilities). The latter 2 builds might be less good in combat (still reasonable) but a player will know this when choosing this character.
For those that want to have a combat oriented D&D there should be options to play combat oriented builds for each class that are comparably good in combat, but there should be options for those groups that don't. D&D is both a co-operative and a roleplaying game. That said, combat in a co-operative game could also be seen as a group playing the party as a whole; if the fighter is the damagedealer my rogue can contribute by making sure that the fighter deals her damage where it hurts most by distracting the artilery or even guarding the mage so the fighter doesn't have to worry about that.
Combat-encounters in D&D doesn't have to be these self-contained minigames like they are in 4ed. Yes, they're fun, they work fantasticly (from the DM's point of view), there are many tactical option where all partymembers can contribute. However my players aren't equally interested in the tactical part or in the combat-encouters in general and for those that aren't as interested the lack of non-combat options when levelling is a bit disappointing and levelling is less exicting than for those that like combat abilities. Basicly, the way 4ed did it, the balance in what players want with their characters is sacrificed to class-balance in combat.
I think imbalance (in combat) isn't a problem if the imbalance isn't intrinsicly classrelated but choice related.
Would you have a problem with separating the two altogether? What if instead of having to choose between combat and non-combat abilities you had a progression of combat abilities (with combat-related balance, choices, feats, powers, spells, whatever, it doesn't matter) and a parallel progression of out-of-combat abilities for every class (with of course, choices and specializations out-of-combat too). That way the problem you seem to have encountered with 4E wouldn't exist, because your players would look forward to the out-of-combat progression and just auto-select the options of the combat progression without caring much (they're there, but they don't care, so whatever). This gives you back the excitement of out-of-combat choices and utility progressions, while not having to give up on combat choices. Of course if you don't care about combat choices you'll still probably end up behind a full-fledged combat specialized member of the party, but that's because he cares about it, not because he has chosen not to specialize in off-combat utility. On the other hand, those who care about out-of-combat utility will end up contributing more than those who just pick their OoC features randomly or on the fly.
The problem I have with your solution is that I do not want to focus on combat or out of combat utility, I want every character to have both. It's more fun if everyone contributes in every situation, in and out of combat, and everyone feels unique in the way they are contributing, in and out of combat. In order to satisfy both you and me, separating the two parts into two non interacting "sockets" seems the most logical solution. You can even disregard the combat tree completely if you don't want to use it, but I'd like it to be there, with balanced options, and I'd like for the OoC progression to be there too, with equally well thought out and balanced options, and I don't want to have to choose between the two, because if the game has both parts I want to have abilities for both parts.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
I think what should have been said in the first place was that a lot of us don't like the homogenization of classes / roles, and that although 4th edition brought a lot of good ideas to the table, many of the classes felt way too similar. Balance is a part of this, I guess, but I think class homogonization is what pushed many people to Pathfinder (one of the main reasons I personally believe D&D v.5 is being produced). Classes should play differently, and although I am DMing a 4th edition campaign and loving it, I have little desire to create a character, which is definitely different than my 3/3.5 experiences. I agree that players should be good at what they want to do and contribute to the party in a meaningful way, but I'm not sure if having four clear-cut roles for each class is the way to accomplish that goal. I'm not sure what the best answer is for any of this, but I am against class homoginization. Please don't interpret this as an anti-balance comment; but I think this is what some people who are "anti-balance" might be trying to get at. Tackling this issue as a whole is no easy task, unfortunately. Also, I'm tired so sorry if there are some scarring typos throughout this rant.
If you actually played the game and actually looked, you'd know they all played differently. What's true is that you may have been more limited in scope because of the limited power selections but inspite of them looking similar and having similar set-ups. They all played differently.
Roles and Balance isn't the issue, it's that you look confined by your powers to only doing certain things.
What 5e should do is give you a wealth of options to try and do but perhaps limit your degree of success by class. So a Bard and a Wizard can try to conjure fire with magic but the Wizard is the one who besieges armies with it.
Money is why it was replaced. When you have the name recognition of DnD, and you release a new edition, many will buy it solely because of the name.
Consistently, when D&D rolls a new rev, there's a largish sub-set of fans who run out and buy it sight-unseen, and a largish subset who initially resist it, but eventually come around because all the new stuff is for the new ed.
Someone is making more money than they are using nearly an exact clone of their 3.5 system.
Paizo used the OGL to cash in on the change-phobic 3.5 holdouts. It's something that couldn't have been done before, and won't be an option for any change-phobic 4e holdouts when 5e comes out. Pathfinder gave the holdouts new stuff, so they just kept holding out.
The existance of the OGL made it possible for them to extend their little temper-tantrum for years. If it results in 5e ignoring 4e's improvements and being some sort of ill-concieved retro-clone, D&D will go back to being the industry laggard it was in the 90s. And some bright little companies will jump in like WotC did with M:tG and WWGS did with the WoD.
So, yeah, Pathfinders doing pretty good (by small press standards) and 4e isn't doing good enough (by multi-billion-dollar corporate standards), so 5e is coming out. It's going to have to be something remarkable to get D&D into Hasbro's 'core product' category, or D&D will be likely be shelved.
If you think that's something to crow about, caw away. *******
the question is: why was pathfinder more successful than 3e?
Because Paizo is a tiny privately held RPG company, and if they bring in enough money that the owners don't have to eat ramen noodles every day, that's a wild success, while Hasbro is a massive souless corporation that's asking WotC, "where's the $50 million a year you said D&D would be making?"
Meh, OK, 30 pages later and the 'unbalanced is good' side of the argument has yet to advance anything more credible than various permutations of "we can still have fun if it isn't balanced" and "the fact that some people play certain classes DESPITE the fact that they're weaker proves its OK"??? Seriously? That's it? Really? Dang, I feel like I wasted 2 hours reading the thing.
Honestly. Sure, plenty of people played fighters in 3.5. Heck, the last time I played 3.5 I played a gnome thief/illusionist. Up to level 4 where the character got insta-ganked by Spectral Killer (IIRC) it was fun, yes, but frankly the character was mechanically pretty meh. So does that mean I don't care if my character is balanced with the other PCs? No, not really. In a heartbeat if someone had given me the option for my character to be more than 1/4th as effective as the druid I'd have leaped on it. These arguments are just not even relevant to the question at hand.
Nobody generally plays a character BECAUSE it will be weaker. They don't play a character BECAUSE it will rarely get the chance to make the largest contribution in most situations. Instead they play them DESPITE that. There's nothing to be gained for the players in making a game that forces them to play 2nd fiddle to other players simply because of the concept they like to play being disfavored by some guy in a cubicle that writes RPG books. If someone DOES want to play a 2nd fiddle deliberately, any system I know of, including 4e, easily allows you to do that.
+1
-12 I don't know about the rest, but all I'm saying is that I haven't expirienced this horrible inbalance everyone cries about. What is it that you are judging "balance" by?
Eh, I didn't characterize it as "horrible inbalance". I just said it was observed by me that my particular character was a good bit less effective than another character. Of course there were some times when my character had the particular solution to some problem at hand. I'd observe though that the druid was as likely as I was to be in that position, PLUS he was about 8 times stronger in combat.
Its not like I didn't pretty much know that would be the situation before I made the character. That doesn't mean that I considered it a FEATURE of the game that it was so. 3.5 would simply be a lot more appealing game to me if I could play that character without being forced to be so much weaker than other characters.
As for what I see as being balanced. Well, there are 2 dimensions to it. First is 'agency' or 'plot power', which means having available tools as a character to affect the course of the game. Secondly there is effectiveness in situations like combat. I would like equivalent agency in my character because it is more fun when I have a reasonably equal chance that MY character will be the one that can pull something out of his hat which is instrumental to the story. It is all well and good for people to say "well, your character is part of the team, but the other character over there has the spell that makes the plan workable" etc. Fighters DO tend to be one archetype of character that is frequently shortchanged here.
Combat (or other action sequence) balance means exactly what it says on the tin. Overall in the course of the various adventures the PCs undertake it is preferable if all the characters operate at a similar level of capability. That the majority of situations or most of the more threatening ones aren't mostly cleared up by the agency of particular characters.
I've DMed a LOT. My group are all pretty cool people, but even they notice and can be bothered by serious asymmetry here. I can recall numerous situations where a player questioned this kind of thing. Even in 4e it happens sometimes that a PC is somewhat weaker and the player will gently prod about maybe getting an item or is there a better feat they can take etc to keep up with the rest of the PCs.
I think a lot of people may exaggerate the problem to some extent, but it is there and it is better when the system doesn't cater to it. In some groups it can be a bigger problem, like if you have a player that likes to powergame or is a spotlight hog. The DM can work on that, but it DOES help to have a system that doesn't put their character on a pedestal above all the others. All I can say is that 3.5 was that system, in spades. IMHO it was pretty much built to showcase full casters.
I think what should have been said in the first place was that a lot of us don't like the homogenization of classes / roles, and that although 4th edition brought a lot of good ideas to the table, many of the classes felt way too similar. Balance is a part of this, I guess, but I think class homogonization is what pushed many people to Pathfinder (one of the main reasons I personally believe D&D v.5 is being produced). Classes should play differently, and although I am DMing a 4th edition campaign and loving it, I have little desire to create a character, which is definitely different than my 3/3.5 experiences. I agree that players should be good at what they want to do and contribute to the party in a meaningful way, but I'm not sure if having four clear-cut roles for each class is the way to accomplish that goal. I'm not sure what the best answer is for any of this, but I am against class homoginization. Please don't interpret this as an anti-balance comment; but I think this is what some people who are "anti-balance" might be trying to get at. Tackling this issue as a whole is no easy task, unfortunately. Also, I'm tired so sorry if there are some scarring typos throughout this rant.
Not to edition war, or question anyone's preferences, but how are 4e characters any less slotted into combat roles than those of any other edition? Lets use classic AD&D as an example because it is easiest to see there, but 3.5 isn't fundamentally different:
The 4e fighter is a defender, holding off and restricting the options of monsters, and dealing them substantial, but not the highest, damage. An AD&D fighter is exactly the same. He goes to the front, engages the monster so it can't eat the wizard, and generally inflicts substantial reliable damage. I see no difference in roles here.
The 4e rogue is a striker, he slips in, uses stealth or flanking to get CA and sticks the monsters in the kidney, doing lots of damage in one shot. He's also a glass cannon and has to avoid being hit too much in return. The AD&D rogue is likewise a striker, he slips in and uses stealth to backstab monsters for high multiple damage, and otherwise tries to stay out of the way of their attacks which he's not too well equipped to survive.
The 4e cleric is a leader, he casts buffs, debuffs, and heals. He can also do a modest amount of damage with his attacks. This is virtually a carbon-copy of what the AD&D cleric does.
The 4e wizard is a controller. He borks the plans of the enemy by slowing them down, tripping them, confusing them, blocking off areas with walls or zones, summons monsters that can block and attack, etc. If he's built along certain lines he can be more of a damage dealer or more of a utility caster, or more of a lockdown specialist, etc. The AD&D wizard is a controller. He too disables and degrades the enemy and foils their plans. He's also rather a swiss-army-knife and can often single shot major enemies and even entire encounters, but he's fundamentally a controller.
I just don't see where 4e even gave roles any more emphasis than they had before, let alone invented them. They seem utterly unremarkable to me in fact. I just see them as a way for the designers of classes to not make aweful mistakes like thinking that "jack-of-all-trades" is a combat role. It is also kind of nice as a way to explain to new players what sort of thing their character should try to do in combat.
Maybe if we just don't point it out people won't notice it. Just call him the Fighter, and the fact that a number of his abilities lend themselves to distracting monsters is all a coincidence.
I just don't see where 4e even gave roles any more emphasis than they had before, let alone invented them.
They named them, that's where the problem begins. The very fact that 4e gave them sports-terminology type names is enough for some people to feel like they're no longer playing make believe, but involved in a sporting activity with rigid goals.
Maybe if we just don't point it out people won't notice it.
Yup. Kind of like how, yeah, some people don't know that Grease is 'better' than Magic Missile because it's not pointed out, and hurl fireballs instead of making tentacles sprout out of th' ground.
Presentation is everything yo, sometimes more important than the content. That's the biggest lesson for WotC to learn about what happened with 4e. And nobody likes being Told what to do. For some, for many, having Roles feels like that.
Using out of genre language like "Power" (acceptable in relatively rare elements but pervading the game books because its the generic term? probably not)
